Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research
arXiv:1210.0442 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062395
Abstract
Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.
References in corpus (1)
Cited by in corpus (15)
- Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator
- Exploring the relationship between the Engineering and Physical Sciences and the Health and Life Sciences by advanced bibliometric methods
- Bibliometric Approximation of a Scientific Specialty by Combining Key Sources, Title Words, Authors and References
- The citation disadvantage of clinical research
- A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
- Topic Modelling of Empirical Text Corpora: Validity, Reliability, and Reproducibility in Comparison to Semantic Maps
- Analyzing the disciplinary focus of universities: Can rankings be a one-size-fits-all?
- The Effects of Research Level and Article Type on the Differences between Citation Metrics and F1000 Recommendations
- Indicators as judgment devices: Citizen bibliometrics in biomedicine and economics
- F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations
- A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators
- Construction of a Pragmatic Base Line for Journal Classifications and Maps Based on Aggregated Journal-Journal Citation Relations
- Citations: Indicators of Quality? The Impact Fallacy
- Tracking the performance of an R&D programme in the Biomedical Sciences
- Professional and Citizen Bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators